Taxi & Limousine Commission V. André Attilus, Appeal # 5061023

Taxi & Limousine Commission v. André Attilus, Appeal # 5061023

Taxi & Limousine Commission v. André Attilus

BACKGROUND

The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (“Commission”), filed an appeal of the decision of Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Gary Sherbell, dated April 23, 2007, wherein the ALJ voided without prejudice the Rule 6-18G[1] charge that was issued in connection with summons number 1135132Abecause the Commission failed to make out a prima facie case in that respondent did not have notice of the charge since a copy of the letter referred to in the summons was not attached to the summons.

On May 14, 2007, pursuant to Rule 8-13C, the Commission filed an appeal requesting that the ALJ’s decision voiding the Rule 6-18G violation be reversed “since all relevant documentation was submitted to the respondent” and the matter remanded for a hearing.On appeal, the Commission claims that the certification of Sara Meyers “states that a copy of the letter is attached. No where does it state that the copy of the letter created and sent to the Respondent is attached.” The Commission further argues that “a copy of the report regarding the Respondent, which included the date the letter was created and the time to comply was included with the supporting documentation.”

Respondent did not file a response to the Commission’s appeal.

ANALYSIS

A review of the record reveals that the Commission failed to submit copies of the summons, the certification of Sara Myers, the letter and report it refers to in its appeal. Absent the documentsthe Commission refers to in its appeal, the Commission fails to identify or raise an appealable issue. The Commission must provide applicable documentary evidence in support of specific assertions it makes when such evidence and assertions are its basis for appeal. Robin Limousine Services, Inc, 5252357, January 8, 2008.

The ALJ has the duty to review the summons at the hearing to determine whether the summons was properly served and whether the summons, on its face, establishes a prima facie case. The ALJ found that the Commission failed to set forth evidence that made out a prima facie casebecause the information attached to the summons was not complete.

The balance of the arguments raised on appeal were considered and deemed to be without merit.

DECISION

Accordingly, with regard to the voiding of the Rule 6-18G violation for Summons No. 1135132A, the decision is affirmed.

Dated: February 19, 2008

Charles R. Fraser

Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs

By: D. Rivers

Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit

Printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.

[1] Failure to comply with a Commission directive.